Evaluating audio feedback for summative and formative assessment Derek France...

Evaluating audio feedback for summative and

formative assessment

Derek France (d.france@chester.ac.uk)Kenny Lynch (klynch@glos.ac.uk)

Outline

• Objectives• Brief context• Chester examples• Gloucestershire examples• Examples• Drawing it all together

• In small groups assess your expectations of the benefits of podcasted feedback for staff and students

In 2 minutes

• In small groups assess your expectations of the challenges for staff and students

In 2 minutes

Objectives

• To evaluate podcasting for summative, formative and generic feedback

• To provide an evidence base for colleagues on how to integrate podcasted feedback into the curriculum

Assessment – central to the student experience:• “frames learning, creates learning activity and orients all

aspects of learning behaviour” (Gibbs, 2006, 23).

Feedback – central to learning from assessment:• “feedback quantity and quality are the probably the most

important factors in enhancing students’ learning (Race, 1999, 27).

However:• “the literature on student experiences of feedback tells a

sorry tale” (Handley et al, 2007, 1).

• “many students commented on ‘cryptic’ feedback which often posed questions, but gave no indication of where they went wrong”(GfK, 2008, 8)

Brief context: assessment and feedback

Brief Context: Literature

• The modern day undergraduate entering University is more technological capable than ever before and has been defined as a ‘digital native’ who has grown up with digital technology and is able to perform multiple tasks simultaneously (Prensky, 2001).

• Oblinger and Oblinger (2005) characterise modern students as the ‘net generation’ who are digitally literate, highly Internet familiar, highly social, crave interactivity in image rich environments and don’t think in terms of technology, they think in terms of activity which technology enables.

• ‘Greater focus on technology will produce real benefits for all’ (Department of Education and Skills, UK, 2005, p.2)

• HEFCE, UK (2009, p.6) more cautiously states that, ‘focus should be on student learning rather than on developments in technology per se, enabling students to learn through, and be supported by technology’

• Prensky (2009) now advocates ‘Digital Wisdom’and ‘Digital Enhancement’

Brief Context: Literature

Model 1:SupportLectures

Model 2:Support

Fieldwork

Model 5:Assessment

Tool

Screencasting,podcating lectures

Lecturesummaries

Pre-lecturelistening materials

(complex concepts)

“iWalk”: Location-based

information

Instruction ontechnique &

equipment use

Video footageprepare for

field trip

Model 4:Support

Practical-basedLearning

Model 3:Support

3-DimensionalLearning

Model 6:Provide

Feedback

Lecture recordings

DigitalStory-telling

AnatomicalSpecimens

(Structures, tissues,dissections)

Softwareteaching & learning(replace text-based

instructions)

Student-created

podcast based on

field trips

Student-created

podcast to address

climate change

Model 7:Supplement

Lectures

Bring topical issues

Guidance & tipsAssessment tasks

SupplementOnline teaching

SkillsDevelopment

Models of Podcasting (Nie, 2007)

PurposeExtension

To LecturesSupport

Fieldwork

SupportPractical

Work

Supplement Online

TeachingAssessment

DevelopStudents’

Study Skills

Bring Topical Issues

Convergence

Developer

Length

Structure

Reusability

Medium

Style

Capacity

Frequency

Stand Alone

Lectures Tutors Students Senior Students Others (Experts)

Audio Video

Integrated with VLE

Temperate (Immediacy, Alive) Reusable

Single Session Multiple Sessions

Short (10 minutes or less) Longer (10+)

Formal (Lecture) Informal (Conversation, Discussion)

Large Student Cohorts Small Groups of Students

Weekly Fortnightly Monthly Regularly

……

A Framework for Developing Podcast Content

(Nie, 2007)

Chester examples

One year, 2008 – 2009:• Two modules – Level 4 (69 students); Level 6 (34

students).• One formative and summative assessment exercises

(L6) & four generic large group feedback opportunities (L4).

For each assignment:• Summative (Sm) -generic overview commentary

combined with bespoke feedback on the group presentation

• Formative (Fm) - informal podcast based on the e-postcard

• Sm and Fm sent to the feedback section of each student’s VLE-based e-portfolio

• Larger group generic feedback of four coursework assessments and placed in the online module space.

The case study

•Feedback portal within the institutional VLE

•Upload via modular e-learning areas

Feedback Uploading & Tracking

Accessing the feedback

1. Pre-feedback questionnaire:Experience of podcasts; current views about feedback and expectations.

(L4, 58, 90% response rate.) (L6, 28, 82% response rate.)

2. Post-feedback questionnaire:Engagement and perceptions. (L4, 30, 46% response rate.) (L6, 29, 85% response rate.)

3. Focus group discussions:Exploring emerging themes in more detail.(one at L6: 6 students; one at L4: 8 students.)

Methods of evaluation

Prior experiences

• ‘Confidence’ in using IT was high, over 90% of students)

• Pre university podcasting experience relatively low at 37% compared to final year students of 82%

• Prior negative feedback experiences L4, 17% and L6, 13%

Formative Feedback by Wordle.net

N = 29

Summative Feedback

N = 29

Generic Large Group Feedback

N = 30

Summative versus Formative versus Generic

• All three forms of podcasted feedback were valued by students

• Formative was generally more appreciated than summative due to its potential immediacy to improve grade

• Feeding forward issues of summative feedback were also highlighted

• Large group generic feedback was appreciated, and students recommended that it should continue and is seen as better than front of class feedback (less embarassment).

Gloucestershire examples

Project aims

GEES-funded small project November 2008 – March 2009, with the aims to:

• develop a straightforward procedure for creating and delivering audio feedback;

• follow a group of academics through the process of introducing audio feedback in a range of modules; and

• evaluate the experience

Project members

• Bill Burford (Landscape)• James Kirwan (CCRI)• Dave Milan (Geography)• Chris Short (Geography)• Claire Simmonds (Broadcast Journalism)• Elisabeth Skinner (Community

Development)• Alan Howe (Social Work)

The project activities

• Levels 1 through 3 to M included• On-campus and distance• Class sizes ranged from 12 to 45• Essays, team-based papers, TV

journalism package, • E-mail, WebCT, Pebblepad • All used for feeding back on

summative assessments• Purchased Sony ICD-UX80

Recorders

Staff responses

• Initially added to workload, but as become used to it, generally perceived as neutral [maximum?]

• Initial concern about content preparation, led to scripting, but gradually moved towards notes/marking sheets and spontaneous recording [skill development and confidence]

• Concerns about accuracy of delivery – mistakes were made in sending to students

• Need for careful management of the medium – tone of voice, intimacy, trust

Issues

• Quality – FASQ, mark moderating

• Security, privacy & identity – misdirected files, archive, anonymous marking, team-based feedback

• Handling grades – on recording or on work?

Future development

• More detailed capture of student responses – in relation to different experiences e.g. discipline, location (VLE, e-mail, e-portfolio), level

• Spread the approach – other disciplines, dissertation feedback?

• Possible audio template (lower entry barrier)

• Procedures for minimising misdirection

Student responses

• Overwhelmingly positive from the students – especially distance learners

• Even profoundly hearing impaired student

• Students described it as personal, intimate, well-thought out

Responsiveness to receiving information verbally:• “Don’t just briefly read it, you actually listen to it and take it in.” • “Novel, hearing voice 'goes in' better than just reading.” • “Better, goes in more. Can remember feedback from podcast

but not from written.”

Greater sensitivity to the spoken word:• ‘I liked the feedback for what it was, but I also found it a bit depressing. It

was very personal… I felt I let you down’.• “Any criticism will hit home more.”• “May be harder to hear a poor mark, rather than in writing.”• [I am least looking forward to] “hearing disappointment in their

voices.”

Engagement with the feedback

The potential for more depth and detail:• Over 70% of students commented on this…• ‘it felt really long. If you’d written this out it would have felt like a whole

book. I really got a lot out of it, though’.• Hearing your voice seems to make the course seem closer, less

distance.

More personalised:• “This feedback felt that the work had really been looked at and

evaluated personally.”• ‘I listened to this at home and it felt like you were in the room with me and

I wasn’t totally comfortable with that’.

More understandable?• You get “the tone of voice with the words so you could

understand the importance of the different bits of feedback.”

Nature and content of the feedback

Action Plan

• What have I learnt?• What I am going to do next?• What 3 things can you feedback to

colleagues?

Potential to do more harm than good?Accepted characteristics of good feedback (irrespective of method of

delivery)…

• Facilitates the development of self assessment (reflection) in learning

• Encourages teacher and peer dialogue around learning• Helps clarify what good performance is (goals, criteria, expected

standards).• Provides opportunities to close the gap between current and

desired performance• Delivers high quality information to student about their learning• Encourages positive motivational beliefs and self esteem• Provides information to teachers that can be used to help shape the

teaching.Juwah et al (2004)

•Opportunity to diversify assessment feedback strategies.

•Adherence to well-established guidance on assessment design/timing and feedback content/style remains critical.

• If used strategically, potential to enhance learning from assessment.

•The potential to engage students with podcasted feedback irrespective of group size.

Conclusion

Further sources of information

• Gibbs, G. (2006). How assessment frames student learning. In C. Bryan and K. Clegg (Eds.), Innovative Assessment in Higher Education (pp 23-36). London: Routledge.

• GfK (2008) NUS/ HSBC Students Research. GfK Financial London, Study Number 154021

• Handley, K., Szwelnik, A., Ujma, D., Lawrence, L., Millar, J. & Price. M. (2007). When less is more: Students’ experiences of assessment feedback. Paper presented at the Higher Education Academy Annual Conference, July 2007. Retrieved June 5, 2008 from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/events/conference/E5.doc

• Juwah, C, Macfarlane-Dick, D, Matthew, B, Nicol, D, Ross D., & Smith, B (2004) Enhancing the Student Learning through effective formative feedback. Higher Education Academy, York. www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/resources/resourcedatabase/id353_senlef_guide.pdf

• Nie, M. (2007). Podcasting for GEES Subjects. Paper presented at the IMPALA 2 workshop, Dec 2007. Retrieved June 5, 2008 from http://www2.le.ac.uk/projects/impala2/presentation/2nd%20Workshop/Presentations/Ming%20Nie

• Race, P. (1999). Enhancing student learning. Birmingham: SEDA.

• Salmon, G. & Edrisingha, P. (2008). Eds. Podcasting for Learning in Universities. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Including companion website: http://www.atimod.com/podcasting/index.shtml

References